• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Law - Piercing the corporate veil

Extracts from this document...


Piercing the corporate veil Since the establishment in Salomon v Salomon, the separate legal personality has been long recognised in English law for centuries, that is to say, a limited liability company has its own legal identity distinct from its shareholders or directors. However, in certain circumstances the courts may be prepared to look behind the company at the actions of the directors and shareholders. This is known as "piercing the corporate veil". There are numerous cases concerning the "piercing the corporate veil", among which, Jones v Lipman1 was a typical case. Lipman sold land to Jones by a written contract but refused to complete the sale because of another good deal, instead he offered damages for breach of contract. ...read more.


Unknown to him, the Welwyn had already transferred its assets to Breachwood and had been struck off the register of companies. In the transfer, Breachwood paid all of the Welwyn's debts but did not provide any provision for future possible claims. Breachwood then carried on Welwyn's former business from the same premises as before. Although Breachwood claimed that it was not liable to pay the compensation to Creasy because Welwyn and Breachwood were separate legal entities. The court pierced the corporate veil "in the interests of justice" and determined that Breachwood was prima facie responsible for payment of the compensation. Unfortunately, the decision of Creasy v Breachwood was recently reversed by the House of Lords in Adams v Cape Industries Ltd.3 In that case, factory workers from one subsidiary ...read more.


Trustor commenced proceedings against both Mr Smallbone and Introcom to recover the money and seek an order that Mr Smallbone should personally repay the monies to Trustor although it was Introcom rather than Mr Smallbone had received the monies. The court decided that it was entitled to regard the receipt of the monies by Introcom as receipt by Mr Smallbone because Introcom had been used by Mr Smallbone simply as a vehicle for the receipt of Trustor's money. The effect of the judgement is to "pierce the corporate veil". The conclusion which we can draw from those cases are that where a company is simply a facade, or there has been impropriety, the court will be rightly prepared to "piercing the corporate veil". 1 [1962] 1 WLR 832 2 [1993] BCLC 480 3 [1990] 2 WLR 657 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Machinery of Justice section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Machinery of Justice essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Corporate Separate Personality

    3 star(s)

    His relationship was only one with the company and it was irrelevant he had no 'legal or equitable' interest with the assets.

  2. Court proceedings.

    To be eligible for jury service a person must be: - between 18 and 70 - ordinarily resident in the UK for at least 5 years since the age of 13 - not ineligible - not disqualified Members of the judiciary and legal profession, the clergy and the mentally disordered are ineligible.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work